Firearm Expertise

NightL said:

No - what they are demanding is very clear, which it seems the majority of your country is now behind. It is not trade off. Tacky phrasing of words also.


Anything that comes out of Crime Prevention Research Center is tainted as offerings from Breitbart.

As Japan, Canada, and the UK are unique unto themselves as well. They, along with Australia, all have implemented gun control laws that have had positive and proven results. They also don't try to hide gun violence research by NRA sponsored laws.

Click to expand...

How do you figure the majority of the country is now behind a ban? Because CNN told you? Talk about tainted offerings. So, what in your estimation is a worthy source for information? Let me guess, Everytown?

So you agree, our countries are all different. Yet you keep trying to compare apples to oranges. Here's where we are now. A country who is very used to having firearms at hand for self-defense (from bad people both foreign and domestic) are being told by proven liars and raging incompetents to surrender their means of self-defense and trust them to do the job.

Tell me, NightL, do you believe in the concept of self-defense? Remember, even if you called the police instantly, response time ranges from five minutes to fifty. If someone breaks into your house/apartment, you are willing to call the cops and just hope all goes well?

OTCurve said:

How do you figure the majority of the country is now behind a ban? Because CNN told you? Talk about tainted offerings. So, what in your estimation is a worthy source for information? Let me guess, Everytown?

So you agree, our countries are all different. Yet you keep trying to compare apples to oranges. Here's where we are now. A country who is very used to having firearms at hand for self-defense (from bad people both foreign and domestic) are being told by proven liars and raging incompetents to surrender their means of self-defense and trust them to do the job.

Tell me, NightL, do you believe in the concept of self-defense? Remember, even if you called the police instantly, response time ranges from five minutes to fifty. If someone breaks into your house/apartment, you are willing to call the cops and just hope all goes well?

Click to expand...

NightL said:

As Japan, Canada, and the UK are unique unto themselves as well. They, along with Australia, all have implemented gun control laws that have had positive and proven results. They also don't try to hide gun violence research by NRA sponsored laws.

Click to expand...

Let us not forget that these same countries that are now disarmed are the same ones that called desperately for the US to rescue them when the tyrants of the world took all the guns and subdued them in country after country. Yes, the US was called to the rescue, and we lost thousands of our finest young men in the efforts to restore a world that had lost its mind.

So please refrain from telling us now how to run the very country that saved your chicken butts.

OTCurve said:

Tell me, NightL, do you believe in the concept of self-defense? Remember, even if you called the police instantly, response time ranges from five minutes to fifty. If someone breaks into your house/apartment, you are willing to call the cops and just hope all goes well?

Click to expand...

I'll answer this one; One does not need an military weapon to competently and successfully defend the home in the event of a break in. Further, as an experienced gun owner, my choice would never be an automatic or semi-auto long gun. I load it differently depending on what I'm guarding against...but my pump action 12 gauge is more than adequate...in fact highly preferred if I'm waking up in the middle of a dark house with unknown threats.

I have pistols too, but these wouldn't be my go to weapon for what you describe.

The fact is; The NRA, and those who have bought into their spiel, have never seen a gun they didn't think should be sold at Walmart. They are already disagreeing with a common sense limit on increasing the age on those who are eligible to purchase a gun on their own. Science has shown that the human brain is not fully developed until later than that. But, we all know this and yet the mania surrounding guns for everyone refuses to head common sense solutions. It's very circular reasoning to fall back on the argument that; Oh, there's already so many guns in America, no attempt at regulation could possible stop a killer...so let's push more guns into the country?


One link to brain development ->https://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-brain-fully-developed/

yukonnights said:

I'll answer this one; One does not need an military weapon to competently and successfully defend the home in the event of a break in. Further, as an experienced gun owner, my choice would never be an automatic or semi-auto long gun. I load it differently depending on what I'm guarding against...but my pump action 12 gauge is more than adequate...in fact highly preferred if I'm waking up in the middle of a dark house with unknown threats.

I have pistols too, but these wouldn't be my go to weapon for what you describe.

The fact is; The NRA, and those who have bought into their spiel, have never seen a gun they didn't think should be sold at Walmart. They are already disagreeing with a common sense limit on increasing the age on those who are eligible to purchase a gun on their own. Science has shown that the human brain is not fully developed until later than that. But, we all know this and yet the mania surrounding guns for everyone refuses to head common sense solutions. It's very circular reasoning to fall back on the argument that; Oh, there's already so many guns in America, no attempt at regulation could possible stop a killer...so let's push more guns into the country?


One link to brain development ->https://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-brain-fully-developed/

Click to expand...

So obviously all the HS kids out protesting for gun control (at the behest of the DNC) should be ignored because their brains aren't developed enough to be reasonable. Hmmmmm....

coachdb18 said:

Let us not forget that these same countries that are now disarmed are the same ones that called desperately for the US to rescue them when the tyrants of the world took all the guns and subdued them in country after country. Yes, the US was called to the rescue, and we lost thousands of our finest young men in the efforts to restore a world that had lost its mind.

So please refrain from telling us now how to run the very country that saved your chicken butts.

Click to expand...

I think this one lacks enough back-up to make it meaningful? This whole idea of the USA being the savior of the world is pretty much confined to the USA. If you're referring to WW II, we didn't "save the world" until we were attacked ourselves. And to honest, I can't recall much 'us saving the world' ever happening.

But, just so others can see and understand: This is the true and underlying foundation of the NRA and those who follow it: We want to be able to fight our own government when they turn on us.

In my opinion, this is a conspiracy fantasy. And yet it is very real here in the good ole' USA. It's the 'bad government' we must fear now. Keep your powder dry boys and girls they could be coming tonight to round us all up and...????

Personally, I'm sorry for those who are this caught up in such nonsense. I once had two friends who got into this crazy shit...it cost them their marriages and a bunch of money spent on burying supplies and guns....that was years ago, wonder if they're still waiting?

coachdb18 said:

So obviously all the HS kids out protesting for gun control (at the behest of the DNC) should be ignored because their brains aren't developed enough to be reasonable. Hmmmmm....

Click to expand...

Protests and political discourse never killed anyone??? Your reasoning is hard for me to follow

yukonnights said:

I'll answer this one; One does not need an military weapon to competently and successfully defend the home in the event of a break in. Further, as an experienced gun owner, my choice would never be an automatic or semi-auto long gun. I load it differently depending on what I'm guarding against...but my pump action 12 gauge is more than adequate...in fact highly preferred if I'm waking up in the middle of a dark house with unknown threats.

I have pistols too, but these wouldn't be my go to weapon for what you describe.

The fact is; The NRA, and those who have bought into their spiel, have never seen a gun they didn't think should be sold at Walmart. They are already disagreeing with a common sense limit on increasing the age on those who are eligible to purchase a gun on their own. Science has shown that the human brain is not fully developed until later than that. But, we all know this and yet the mania surrounding guns for everyone refuses to head common sense solutions. It's very circular reasoning to fall back on the argument that; Oh, there's already so many guns in America, no attempt at regulation could possible stop a killer...so let's push more guns into the country?


One link to brain development ->https://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-brain-fully-developed/

Click to expand...

Well, as an experienced gun owner, you must be aware that the weapon used in Florida was not a military weapon, right? In fact, as an experienced gun owner, you must be aware that you cannot have an automatic long gun, unless you have a class III license and tens of thousands of dollars, right?

I'm glad you feel your pump action is more than adequate, but at least one person on this thread has called for a ban on pump-action long arms, so that means no shotgun for you. Sorry.

More of the evil NRA? When has an orginization ever been blamed so much for things none of their members did? And please spare me the "common sense" and "reasonable" measures, which don't do a darn thing in solving the problem, which is criminals. The murderer in Florida should never have been able to buy a gun, regardless of his age, but the FBI and local law enforcement screwed up.

If science has shown the brain is not fully developed, why is it ok to sign them up in the military, put a true automatic weapon into their hands and send them into the fray? Why no outrage there?

As for your circular reasoning, your solution is to what, exactly?

yukonnights said:

Protests and political discourse never killed anyone??? Your reasoning is hard for me to follow

Click to expand...

I'll take a stab at it. You said the brains of 18 year olds were not advanced enough or mature enough to buy a firearm, yet these protesters are that age (or below), and therefore not advanced or mature enough either, so why should we listen to them for their political views?

How many years until their brains mature anyway? Couple of weeks ago this generation was eating Tide pods, so I'm assuming it will be a while.

yukonnights said:

I'll answer this one; One does not need an military weapon to competently and successfully defend the home ...

Click to expand...

Then it is probably a good thing that "military weapons" aren't readily available and are covered under the 1934 gun control act (and its successors.)

yukonnights said:

Protests and political discourse never killed anyone??? Your reasoning is hard for me to follow

Click to expand...

Wanna bet? Let's see...where to start? Too many to decide. You should brush up on your history of the United States of America. Many people have been killed while protesting and during political discourse. I can think of four right off the "Kent State" bat.

Zeb_Carter said:

Wanna bet? Let's see...where to start? Too many to decide. You should brush up on your history of the United States of America. Many people have been killed while protesting and during political discourse. I can think of four right off the "Kent State" bat.

Click to expand...

But those students were killed by guns...and no doubt, some have been killed by sticks and some by stones or cars. Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear; but the mere act of protesting is not deadly. It's an important method of social expression. Sometimes people's reaction to the protest can turn deadly...but that's another issue it seems.

Weird Harold said:

Then it is probably a good thing that "military weapons" aren't readily available and are covered under the 1934 gun control act (and its successors.)

Click to expand...

But alas, with a 'bump stock' a civilized Walmart AR-15 knockoff can be just as effective as the real thing...and maybe if we're lucky we can soon buy a silencer for it (to protect our hearing, of course )

Yes indeedy, this will surely Make America Great Again

OTCurve said:

I'll take a stab at it. You said the brains of 18 year olds were not advanced enough or mature enough to buy a firearm, yet these protesters are that age (or below), and therefore not advanced or mature enough either, so why should we listen to them for their political views?

How many years until their brains mature anyway? Couple of weeks ago this generation was eating Tide pods, so I'm assuming it will be a while.

Click to expand...

From the quick research I did, the early to mid-twenties. As with all things human, it varies. But having been young, and raising a couple of kids...that seems about right to me.

I think it's not that risky to listen to our children. Sometimes wisdom speaks more clearly out of the mouths of babes... The burden is upon those who set themselves up to lead others to make the final decisions. Be it a parent, or a President...the final responsibility is theirs.

yukonnights said:

But those students were killed by guns...and no doubt, some have been killed by sticks and some by stones or cars. Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear; but the mere act of protesting is not deadly. It's an important method of social expression. Sometimes people's reaction to the protest can turn deadly...but that's another issue it seems.

Click to expand...

It's always deadly as long as there is someone who doesn't believe in what you believe. Just because no one dies when they protest about the use of plastic straws doesn't prove much and is mostly likely because no cares about what people are protesting about.

NightL said:

Maybe all the "we" of yourself should turn on the tv and watch the news of your country. May help that clueless about America thing.

Edit: Even Fox will do this time since they are getting ever so titchy about the students - actually fairly hard to ignore.

Click to expand...

Lol, see, clueless?

If you really believe America's MSM to get your truth, you are hopeless and helpless.

Go play with your kangaroo.

yukonnights said:

But alas, with a 'bump stock' a civilized Walmart AR-15 knockoff can be just as effective as the real thing...and maybe if we're lucky we can soon buy a silencer for it (to protect our hearing, of course )

Yes indeedy, this will surely Make America Great Again

Click to expand...

So, silencers make a weapon more deadly?

And btw, depending on where you live, you may already be able to legally own a silencer.

toeskr said:

If you really believe America's MSM to get your truth, you are hopeless and helpless.

Click to expand...

hmm, White Nationalists News Daily a thing for you?

or whatever you toewiggle to

NightL said:

hmm, White Nationalists News Daily a thing for you?

or whatever you toewiggle to

Click to expand...

Don't even know what that is and don't care, probably something you pulled out of your ass to make yourself appear smart. If that is a valid publication, can you provide a link? I've never heard of it and if you read it, I think that says more about you than me.

Pretty funny you assume you know what race I am. Clueless aussie.

You need to go bang your head in frustration on a eucalyptus tree and quit worrying yourself about America's business.

Your posts are becoming hilarious for posterity though. Thanks for the laughs.

Calling for a cop in a precinct 10 minutes away is like building a storm shelter in a town 20 miles away when the tornado comes for you. Guns have to be IMMEDIATELY available or they’re of no use at all. Conceal carry is the only realistic answer.

No comment, just wondering and passing along the news of the day from NPR/OPB Sounds like Congressional Investigators are trying to find out more too.

Russian Politician's NRA Ties Revealed

OTCurve said:

That being said, when you have a moment, check out the process to change the Constitution, then look at a voting map of the last election. The support is not there, no matter what the (and I include all stations in this) "news" tells you.

Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, the last Federal-level election was the December 12 ballot to fill Jeff Sessions' old seat. Democrats won that one with a margin of 1.7%, in a state that went 62-34 Republican just a year earlier in the Presidential election and where Dems didn't even bother running a Senate candidate in 2014.

At the state level, the latest was just last week (Feb 27) with special elections to fill vacancies in State legislatures:

Connecticut #120: 51-49 D victory, in a district that Republicans won by 25% in 2016.

New Hampshire, Belknap 3: 54-46 D victory, in a district that Republicans won 54-46 in 2016.

Kentucky #89: 67-33 R victory. (Republicans won by 100% in 2016 because Democrats didn't run a candidate - but as with Alabama, a lot has changed since 2016.)

Last year there were 98 special elections at State level. Net result was +11 Democrat seats, which is huge - in a normal year the net change is about +/- 3 or smaller.

Those aren't isolated incidents; things have shifted a lot since 2016. November's going to be an interesting time.

Hypothetical question - leaving aside whether it's likely to happen, if pro-gun-control candidates did get enough votes to effect legal change (be that through Constitutional amendment, coming up with legislation that survives a SCOTUS challenge, whatever), would you accept that result?

Everyone for gun control keeps shooting down every suggestion for protecting kids it seems.

Click to expand...

Nope. Only the ones that we believe would be harmful and counterproductive. Gun control is a suggestion for protecting kids, it just isn't one that you like.

The NRA had proposals years ago for helping, which were ignored. Ideas ranging from structural changes to arming folk keep getting met with shouts of alarm. So I shall ask you, what do you think should be done? Keep in mind that those in the criminal world who supply arms would stockpile an insane amount in the event of a ban, so you cannot assume the criminal is unarmed.

Click to expand...

...we just went through this a couple of posts ago. Yes, some criminals would stockpile, but your average mass shooter doesn't have that kind of connections.

As for mass shootings taking place in gun-free zones, and the percentages, each side can whip out stats. Here's another: https://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/m...ty-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

Click to expand...

Er... isn't that the same 2014 CPRC stuff that you already linked to here? (last time via Breitbart, this time more directly.)

Using Australia stats are misleading I think. I mean I understand why you would want to, it's your country and you are very familiar with the goings on, but we are a unique country and culture.

Click to expand...

For clarity, I'm a dual US/Australian national and I've lived and worked in the USA, although most of my life has been in Australia. So I'm reasonably familiar with US culture (to the extent that there is a "US culture" per se - Hawaii is very different to Boston or the Midwest!)

I've read many reports and articles on Australia and their confiscation and how the murder/violence rate was already decreasing and how the confiscation didn't affect that rate meaningfully. How other crimes increased, how many of the guns that were supposed to be confiscated were not, and so on.

Click to expand...

I think we already talked about that last point? Even when people don't turn their guns in, if it pushes them to hide guns away where they can't easily be accessed, that's an improvement.

It could be Australians are less violent in nature, though you do get a crazy now and again.

Click to expand...

I can't comment on "in nature"; too many other factors muddying the waters. But we certainly had more than enough murderous young men in the 1980s and up to the mid-90s.

Breitbart, Mother Jones, Huffington Post, etc. are all biased in their own way. Some more than others, certainly. I'm not sure, but I think 'type unknown' firearms may be those that don't have an actual classification, like sawed-off shotgun and the like. People can cherry pick numbers and apply their biases to get all sorts of answers.

Click to expand...

The UCR has a category for "shotguns", so that's not it. (Even if it was due to some other category of gun, the usual language for that is "other" or "not elsewhere classified", rather than "unknown"). Even allowing that there are types of firearms that aren't handguns, shotguns, or rifles, it seems unlikely that those other-guns are killing three thousand a year.

It's more likely to be due to differences in how regional authorities collect their information. FBI doesn't collect UCR data correctly; they get sent it by about eighteen thousand different law enforcement agencies, and not everybody records stuff the exact same way. My best guess would be that some agencies are recording details on the type of firearm used, and others just have a single box for "cause of death: gunshot wound".

Take a look at Florida and that tragedy. Cops with guns show up and do NOTHING. These same cops get called as many as 39 times to the killer's house. The killer should never have been able to legally purchase a rifle, but the FBI failed to follow up on posts of his that showed his mental state.

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on that? What were the laws that should've prevented him from buying/owning guns? My understanding was that it's very, very hard to take away somebody's firearms without a criminal conviction, and that there simply wasn't much the police could legally do before he started killing people.

Lastly, there was a funny post on another board that was similar to the above. The government made drugs illegal. They cannot keep them out of elementary schools, they cannot keep them out of prison, the cannoy keep them off the streets. Yet you would have us believe they could keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

Click to expand...

Drugs can be hidden just about anywhere. It's a bit harder to stash an AR-15 in a body cavity

As always, great debate.

Click to expand...

Cheers. I do appreciate that you've been more courteous to me than I'm used to in this kind of discussion

OTCurve said:

Well, as an experienced gun owner, you must be aware that the weapon used in Florida was not a military weapon, right? In fact, as an experienced gun owner, you must be aware that you cannot have an automatic long gun, unless you have a class III license and tens of thousands of dollars, right?

Click to expand...

Some firearms history.

Back in the 1950s, the US Army was looking for a 7.62mm rifle to replace the old M1 Garand. Armalite (more specifically, Eugene Stoner) designed and submitted the AR-10 for consideration in that role; it got some good reviews, but eventually lost out to Springfield Armory's T44, which was renamed the M14.

(Military procurement politics is some crazy crazy shit.)

The Vietnam War showed up some deficiencies in the M14, and military thinking shifted away from the 7.62mm round in favour of smaller calibres. Trying to capture that market, Armalite redesigned the AR-10 to produce a smaller version in 5.56mm: the "Armalite AR-15".

The US Army tested the Armalite AR-15 for military use. Once again, it did well, but the Army didn't adopt it at that time. Armalite sold the AR-15 to Colt, who made some minor tweaks to the design, and sold it to armed forces around the world. The US Air Force liked it and adopted it, and eventually after much drama it was also adopted by the US Army with a few more tweaks, and renamed the M-16.

So far, all these versions had been made for the military market, capable of semi-auto and full-auto fire. Colt then decided to broaden their market, so they produced a semi-auto version which they marketed as the AR-15. Eventually their patents expired, and then other manufacturers started producing AR-15 clones.

(Meanwhile, on the military side, the A2 and A4 refinements of the M16 also did away with full-auto mode, because it was largely counterproductive; most of the time semi-auto was a far more effective use of ammunition.)

In other words: the AR-15 was conceived as a military rifle, as the child of another military rifle, designed and redesigned for military use, adopted by military forces all over the world, and then slightly tweaked to sell to civilians by removing a feature that some of the military versions also removed. Calling it "not a military weapon" is... rather stretching things.

More of the evil NRA? When has an orginization ever been blamed so much for things none of their members did?

Click to expand...

I know a few Muslims who might have something to say about that. And I do believe Coachie was blaming gun-control advocates for shootings just upthread.

If science has shown the brain is not fully developed, why is it ok to sign them up in the military, put a true automatic weapon into their hands and send them into the fray? Why no outrage there?

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's not okay?

If you haven't encountered anybody outraged by the idea, you're just not hanging with the right crowd. People have been arguing for more than a hundred years that it's immoral to send teenagers to war.

Wilfred Owen wrote this one some time between 1916 and 1918:

Let the boy try along this bayonet-blade
How cold steel is, and keen with hunger of blood;
Blue with all malice, like a madman's flash;
And thinly drawn with famishing for flesh.

Lend him to stroke these blind, blunt bullet-leads,
Which long to nuzzle in the hearts of lads,
Or give him cartridges of fine zinc teeth
Sharp with the sharpness of grief and death.

For his teeth seem for laughing round an apple.
There lurk no claws behind his fingers supple;
And God will grow no talons at his heels,
Nor antlers through the thickness of his curls.

toeskr said:

So, silencers make a weapon more deadly?

Click to expand...

They certainly can. They make it harder for people nearby to recognise that a shooting has started, or to locate the shooter, which reduces their ability to react and protect themselves.

Bramblethorn said:

As far as I'm aware, the last Federal-level election was the December 12 ballot to fill Jeff Sessions' old seat. Democrats won that one with a margin of 1.7%, in a state that went 62-34 Republican just a year earlier in the Presidential election and where Dems didn't even bother running a Senate candidate in 2014.

At the state level, the latest was just last week (Feb 27) with special elections to fill vacancies in State legislatures:

Connecticut #120: 51-49 D victory, in a district that Republicans won by 25% in 2016.

New Hampshire, Belknap 3: 54-46 D victory, in a district that Republicans won 54-46 in 2016.

Kentucky #89: 67-33 R victory. (Republicans won by 100% in 2016 because Democrats didn't run a candidate - but as with Alabama, a lot has changed since 2016.)

Last year there were 98 special elections at State level. Net result was +11 Democrat seats, which is huge - in a normal year the net change is about +/- 3 or smaller.

Those aren't isolated incidents; things have shifted a lot since 2016. November's going to be an interesting time.

Hypothetical question - leaving aside whether it's likely to happen, if pro-gun-control candidates did get enough votes to effect legal change (be that through Constitutional amendment, coming up with legislation that survives a SCOTUS challenge, whatever), would you accept that result?



Nope. Only the ones that we believe would be harmful and counterproductive. Gun control is a suggestion for protecting kids, it just isn't one that you like.



...we just went through this a couple of posts ago. Yes, some criminals would stockpile, but your average mass shooter doesn't have that kind of connections.



Er... isn't that the same 2014 CPRC stuff that you already linked to here? (last time via Breitbart, this time more directly.)



For clarity, I'm a dual US/Australian national and I've lived and worked in the USA, although most of my life has been in Australia. So I'm reasonably familiar with US culture (to the extent that there is a "US culture" per se - Hawaii is very different to Boston or the Midwest!)



I think we already talked about that last point? Even when people don't turn their guns in, if it pushes them to hide guns away where they can't easily be accessed, that's an improvement.



I can't comment on "in nature"; too many other factors muddying the waters. But we certainly had more than enough murderous young men in the 1980s and up to the mid-90s.



The UCR has a category for "shotguns", so that's not it. (Even if it was due to some other category of gun, the usual language for that is "other" or "not elsewhere classified", rather than "unknown"). Even allowing that there are types of firearms that aren't handguns, shotguns, or rifles, it seems unlikely that those other-guns are killing three thousand a year.

It's more likely to be due to differences in how regional authorities collect their information. FBI doesn't collect UCR data correctly; they get sent it by about eighteen thousand different law enforcement agencies, and not everybody records stuff the exact same way. My best guess would be that some agencies are recording details on the type of firearm used, and others just have a single box for "cause of death: gunshot wound".



Can you elaborate on that? What were the laws that should've prevented him from buying/owning guns? My understanding was that it's very, very hard to take away somebody's firearms without a criminal conviction, and that there simply wasn't much the police could legally do before he started killing people.



Drugs can be hidden just about anywhere. It's a bit harder to stash an AR-15 in a body cavity



Cheers. I do appreciate that you've been more courteous to me than I'm used to in this kind of discussion



Some firearms history.

Back in the 1950s, the US Army was looking for a 7.62mm rifle to replace the old M1 Garand. Armalite (more specifically, Eugene Stoner) designed and submitted the AR-10 for consideration in that role; it got some good reviews, but eventually lost out to Springfield Armory's T44, which was renamed the M14.

(Military procurement politics is some crazy crazy shit.)

The Vietnam War showed up some deficiencies in the M14, and military thinking shifted away from the 7.62mm round in favour of smaller calibres. Trying to capture that market, Armalite redesigned the AR-10 to produce a smaller version in 5.56mm: the "Armalite AR-15".

The US Army tested the Armalite AR-15 for military use. Once again, it did well, but the Army didn't adopt it at that time. Armalite sold the AR-15 to Colt, who made some minor tweaks to the design, and sold it to armed forces around the world. The US Air Force liked it and adopted it, and eventually after much drama it was also adopted by the US Army with a few more tweaks, and renamed the M-16.

So far, all these versions had been made for the military market, capable of semi-auto and full-auto fire. Colt then decided to broaden their market, so they produced a semi-auto version which they marketed as the AR-15. Eventually their patents expired, and then other manufacturers started producing AR-15 clones.

(Meanwhile, on the military side, the A2 and A4 refinements of the M16 also did away with full-auto mode, because it was largely counterproductive; most of the time semi-auto was a far more effective use of ammunition.)

In other words: the AR-15 was conceived as a military rifle, as the child of another military rifle, designed and redesigned for military use, adopted by military forces all over the world, and then slightly tweaked to sell to civilians by removing a feature that some of the military versions also removed. Calling it "not a military weapon" is... rather stretching things.



I know a few Muslims who might have something to say about that. And I do believe Coachie was blaming gun-control advocates for shootings just upthread.



Perhaps it's not okay?

If you haven't encountered anybody outraged by the idea, you're just not hanging with the right crowd. People have been arguing for more than a hundred years that it's immoral to send teenagers to war.

Wilfred Owen wrote this one some time between 1916 and 1918:

Let the boy try along this bayonet-blade
How cold steel is, and keen with hunger of blood;
Blue with all malice, like a madman's flash;
And thinly drawn with famishing for flesh.

Lend him to stroke these blind, blunt bullet-leads,
Which long to nuzzle in the hearts of lads,
Or give him cartridges of fine zinc teeth
Sharp with the sharpness of grief and death.

For his teeth seem for laughing round an apple.
There lurk no claws behind his fingers supple;
And God will grow no talons at his heels,
Nor antlers through the thickness of his curls.



They certainly can. They make it harder for people nearby to recognise that a shooting has started, or to locate the shooter, which reduces their ability to react and protect themselves.

Click to expand...

I do agree that November will be an interesting time, especially with the ongoing shenanigans. Putting guns aside for the moment, the issuance of ids to illegals that will allow them to vote is a true game-changer. Also the multiple politicians who put the illegals before citizens. Why this is being done boggles the mind, and the reasons that first come to mind are all rather chilling.

To answer your hypothetical question, if I were convinced it were a legal vote, yes. For any vote now, if illegals can enter the process, it is a matter of blatant foreign interference. We cannot let them vote, period.

Ok, you say nope. What suggestions, other than removing the gun, has been made by the other side, to keep schools safe? Also, seriously, how do you know what connections some of these mass shooters might have had? I'm betting the San Bernadino shooters did.

I recently watched a video of an Australian woman discussing the difference between our cultures, and the mentioning that our country fought to be established, where Australia didn't, and the subsequent influence guns have had in the US, well, it was quite worth the watch. Australia never really had gun problems, did they? The rare mass shooting, your murder rate was already decreasing when the confiscation went into play, not a lot of change after, and so on? While I do believe we all have a culture, I think Australia is different from the US on a more basic level, which makes common ground a little more uncertain, especially on issues like guns.

The unknown/other weapons, well, it could be A or it could be B or it could be something neither of us have thought of, so until we know for sure, it is all a guessing game. I have to say, though, your suggestion certainly has merit.

The laws that should have prevented him from buying a gun fall under mental health. The whole thing is a mess. If he was adjudicated as mentally defective or had been committed, he is a prohibited person. Now someone has to actually start the process, requesting that he be declared defective. I believe in Florida that falls under the Baker act. The police, having had multiple visits, along with the other evidence in play (killer made threats, commented he was going to be a school shooter, physically threatened/assaulted someone, etc), I believe would have played a strong part during his evaluation, telling the evaluator that this kid was not mentally sound.

The issues with laws that take away rights is that it falls down to trusting the mechanism in place. If you have an ongoing argument with your neighbor (why can't he keep his dog in his own yard/keep quiet on weekends/keep his lawn clean/etc), you do not want him able to call the cops, falsely accuse you of aberrant behavior, and have your rights suspended. Just broke up with your girlfriend and she decides to lie? And so on. I think one of the main reasons that these laws are not more in place in this nation is a matter of trust. It should be the people near the person may report aberrant behavior, at which point the authorities take over and investigate. However, and this is important, if those authorities are pushing an agenda, not one that is looking out for us, how can we possibly trust them enough to give them the authority that is needed? (Like Lois Verner in the IRS, showed there was an agenda going on, or Holder and Fast and Furious, it shows people in power are abusing said power to push their own agendas, so many people refuse to give them any more, believing it will also be abused, if not now, certainly at some point down the road.)

While it is true that hiding an AR-15 is more difficult than hiding a smaller package, the fact is that laws should be enforced to the best of the ability of the enforcement agency responsible, and this just is not happening. Severe lack of prosecution for straw purchasers is a huge problem. Time and time again the law enforcers don't do their job, so why would this time be any different? Also, why should I put my trust and security in the hands of people that may simply choose not to prosecute a crimninal?

Personally, I find the AR platform rather inelegant, especially the AR-15. Nice reading though, I enjoyed it. But I do not call it a military weapon, as many are not made to military specifications, and most importantly, they do not fire in any other mode than semi-automatic. That's the big difference, and until they actually function exactly like their military counterparts, they are different and not considered to be military weaponry at all.

You are saying Muslims would say what exactly? As for blaming the gun-control folk, one certainly has choices aplenty, as in all blamings. So you agree we shouldn't blame an entire group for the acts of a few?

Excellent point, maybe a revamp of the system is in order. Voting, driving, rifles, drinking, military service, smoking, anything we have determined needs a mature mind to make an informed decision on, well, wait until 21. To me it is the contradictions that are especially annoying. Either one is or is not capable of mature decisions, and the framework should reflect that. The Tide Pod generation is not one that instills a belief in early maturity though, at least from my view.

While you definitely make a point, let's remind the viewers out there that sound suppressors don't magically transform a firearm to 'pfft pfft' levels when they shoot. They are still quite noisy. Though as for recognizing gunfire, I think the vast majority of people won't recognize it whether it is suppressed or not.

I do think a firearms familiarity course should be offered at the school level. A lot of the fear of firearms can be explained by simple ignorance. The movie industry could put together a nice explanation of how far they stretch credulity when firearms are used in their movies. While many people villify them, they do help save lives as well as hurt them. As with any tool, it is the purpose of the wielder that determines their use.

I certainly respect how Bramblethorn continuously provides cited references.

Yup, OTCurve, I removed a couple of sentences - they had no impact for what I responded to and in some cases more appropriate for a response from Bramblethorn.

OTCurve said:

I do agree that November will be an interesting time, especially with the ongoing shenanigans. Putting guns aside for the moment, the issuance of ids to illegals that will allow them to vote is a true game-changer. Also the multiple politicians who put the illegals before citizens. Why this is being done boggles the mind, and the reasons that first come to mind are all rather chilling.

To answer your hypothetical question, if I were convinced it were a legal vote, yes. For any vote now, if illegals can enter the process, it is a matter of blatant foreign interference. We cannot let them vote, period.

So basically you already have made up your mind not to trust any election result that does not match your gun loving ideology. "shenanigans" - really? "That Tide Pod generation and their shenanigans should be dismissed, never allowed to vote and be neutered. More guns in schools. Loaded AR-15s in breakfast cereal"

Ok, you say nope. What suggestions, other than removing the gun, has been made by the other side, to keep schools safe? Also, seriously, how do you know what connections some of these mass shooters might have had? I'm betting the San Bernadino shooters did.

Bramblethorn has already covered that mass murder of school children is probably not high on the agenda of organised crime - again, that whole thing of bad for business etc. It seems though you are intent on defying logic over that. Here we are once again to you always bringing back "removing the gun" as a blanket statement. You do this time and time again.

I recently watched a video of an Australian woman discussing the difference between our cultures, and the mentioning that our country fought to be established, where Australia didn't, and the subsequent influence guns have had in the US, well, it was quite worth the watch. Australia never really had gun problems, did they? hmm, that genocide issue of the first peoples by white colonialists... yup - involved guns.


The rare mass shooting, your murder rate was already decreasing when the confiscation went into play, not a lot of change after, and so on? Bramblethorn has already given you the stats on that, as I have provided in previous threads started by gun nuts. While I do believe we all have a culture, I think Australia is different from the US on a more basic level, which makes common ground a little more uncertain, especially on issues like guns. What the hell does that actually mean?

The laws that should have prevented him from buying a gun fall under mental health. The whole thing is a mess. and that is exactly why there is a debate about gun control. Your solution is to throw a whole lot more guns in the mix defies logic. You are battling your pride over this, your arguments have been called out time and time again and you will always come back to "you want to remove guns" - na just certain types of military style weapons. Increased and consistent back ground checks would help.

If he was adjudicated as mentally defective or had been committed, he is a prohibited person. Now someone has to actually start the process, requesting that he be declared defective. I believe in Florida that falls under the Baker act. The police, having had multiple visits, along with the other evidence in play (killer made threats, commented he was going to be a school shooter, physically threatened/assaulted someone, etc), I believe would have played a strong part during his evaluation, telling the evaluator that this kid was not mentally sound.
So are you fighting for increased back ground checks or not? You do realise this is also included with those advocating increased gun control in the US and does go to partly answer your "What suggestions, other than removing the gun, has been made by the other side, to keep schools safe?". Mental health assessment is a tricky and delicate area, then trying to decide which of those who have a mental illness have the propensity for being homicidal... I certainly support increased background checks and I also support removing military style rapid fire weapons designed to kill humans on mass from civilians. Those who support increased gun control actually are not obliged to come up with other suggestions to justify your guns in schools, more guns in society and silenced automatic weapons for all whack job concepts of mass murder prevention.

The issues with laws that take away rights is that it falls down to trusting the mechanism in place. If you have an ongoing argument with your neighbor (why can't he keep his dog in his own yard/keep quiet on weekends/keep his lawn clean/etc), you do not want him able to call the cops, falsely accuse you of aberrant behavior, and have your rights suspended. Just broke up with your girlfriend and she decides to lie? Sometimes it is just a little sentence... wow I think one of the main reasons that these laws are not more in place in this nation is a matter of trust. There certainly seems to be a lack of trust issue with police in your country. It should be the people near the person may report aberrant behavior, at which point the authorities take over and investigate. However, and this is important, if those authorities are pushing an agenda, not one that is looking out for us, how can we possibly trust them enough to give them the authority that is needed? So you now want AR-15s to protect you from police (and your girlfriend)? (Like Lois Verner in the IRS, showed there was an agenda going on, or Holder and Fast and Furious, it shows people in power are abusing said power to push their own agendas, so many people refuse to give them any more, believing it will also be abused, if not now, certainly at some point down the road.)

While it is true that hiding an AR-15 is more difficult than hiding a smaller package, the fact is that laws should be enforced to the best of the ability of the enforcement agency responsible, and this just is not happening. Severe lack of prosecution for straw purchasers is a huge problem. Time and time again the law enforcers don't do their job, so why would this time be any different? Also, why should I put my trust and security in the hands of people that may simply choose not to prosecute a crimninal? You consider yourself to be a vigilante? You deciding with with a AR-15 who is a criminal or not. Of course your neighbour may think you a criminal? Ah, that glorious anarchy thing to make a society feel safe.

Personally, I find the AR platform rather inelegant, especially the AR-15. Nice reading though, I enjoyed it. But I do not call it a military weapon, as many are not made to military specifications, and most importantly, they do not fire in any other mode than semi-automatic. That's the big difference, and until they actually function exactly like their military counterparts, they are different and not considered to be military weaponry at all. you could paint any semi or automatic weapon purple and tie them with pink bows to be "classified out side military specifications" yet still have a weapon with a sole purpose of design to kill humans on mass.


Excellent point, maybe a revamp of the system is in order. Voting, driving, rifles, drinking, military service, smoking, anything we have determined needs a mature mind to make an informed decision on, well, wait until 21. To me it is the contradictions that are especially annoying. Either one is or is not capable of mature decisions, and the framework should reflect that. The Tide Pod generation you condescending arse is not one that instills a belief in early maturity though, at least from my view. Are we to suppose teenagers who protested about the draft and Vietnam war should be considered by history as an irrelevant nuisance with their shenanigans?

While you definitely make a point, let's remind the viewers out there that sound suppressors don't magically transform a firearm to 'pfft pfft' levels when they shoot. They are still quite noisy. Though as for recognizing gunfire, I think the vast majority of people won't recognize it whether it is suppressed or not. Oh, that is your answer for protecting schools, more AR-15s with silencers.

I do think a firearms familiarity course should be offered at the school level. Maybe start with sex and relationship education and teaching of empathy skills first, just may help a few troubled souls better than BRINGING MORE FUCKING GUNS INTO SCHOOLS A lot of the fear of firearms can be explained by simple ignorance. So those who witnessed their school friends being slaughtered and the parents of those children are ignorant? The movie industry could put together a nice explanation of how far they stretch credulity when firearms are used in their movies. While many people villify them, they do help save lives as well as hurt them. As with any tool, it is the purpose of the wielder that determines their use. If the tool is dangerous and is designed for mass killing of humans then maybe it should be removed from the suburban toolbox

Click to expand...

NightL said:

I certainly respect how Bramblethorn continuously provides cited references.

Yup, OTCurve, I removed a couple of sentences - they had no impact for what I responded to and in some cases more appropriate for a response from Bramblethorn.

Click to expand...

I've already stated my reasons for stopping cites, NightL.

It is truly amazing how you take what I say, disregard it, and fill in your own ideology. I state our voting process is being illegally altered, and your response is that I think people too young to vote should not be allowed to vote ever, they should be neutered and loaded AR-15s in breakfast cereal.

I'm stopping right there. Bramblethorn is someone who is calm, courteous and rational in his debates.

I am sorry to say that you are none of these things, NightL, and as you have gone even further off the path of rationality, you've passed the point where I am willing to attempt to have a discourse with you.

OTCurve said:

I've already stated my reasons for stopping cites, NightL.

It is truly amazing how you take what I say, disregard it, and fill in your own ideology. I state our voting process is being illegally altered, and your response is that I think people too young to vote should not be allowed to vote ever, they should be neutered and loaded AR-15s in breakfast cereal.

I'm stopping right there. Bramblethorn is someone who is calm, courteous and rational in her debates.

I am sorry to say that you are none of these things, NightL, and as you have gone even further off the path of rationality, you've passed the point where I am willing to attempt to have a discourse with you.

Click to expand...

Bramblethorn is a she.